Wikipedia:Peer review/List of military occupations/archive1

List of military occupations
This peer review discussion has been closed.. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in seeing this list become a featured list. Would like to see how far it currently is from this. Thanks, -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Hi Serialjoepsycho, some comments from me: Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My core observation is that we are not crystal clear as to the criteria for inclusion, in terms of what exactly we need to see from a source to be confident that the situation can be defined as a Military occupation
 * For example:
 * Is Crimea still "occupied", now that Russian citizenship has been given to its residents? "Annexed" is the more usual term, which means it should not be on this list
 * Was the Soviet occupation of Hungary technically an occupation? Weren't they citizen's of the USSR? Same goes for all the other USSR events in the list
 * Hungary was never a part of the USSR. So yes it would still be a Military Occupation. They were in the Eastern Bloc if thats what you mean. Crimea is viewed as being occupied by the majority of the world. The three Baltic countries listed view their time in the USSR as military occupation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The vast majority is not just UK and USA.--Orel787 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Cliftonian: Under "Current military occupations" we list East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as areas of the State of Palestine, under Israeli military occupation since 1967. While Israel has indeed occupied these areas since 1967, the State of Palestine was declared only in 1988; the presentation therefore seems slightly misleading to me. I think a note in brackets or a footnote is warranted for clarification in the "Occupied state" column after each mention of Palestine. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc
Dear Mr.,

I do not agree with Cliftonian. If a territory is not under the administration of a given state, this does not to its neighboring state the right to occupy it... As shown in the 1967 UN Security Resolution, an Arab state should be founded in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza Strip... So, these areas were not a property of Israel but a property of Palestinian Liberation Organization... That is why Israel is considered to be occupying these important territories... As for the work, the list is quite complete and very precise... However, Eastern France were occupied by German since 1871 and not 1914. Try to adjust this... Moreover, Korea War was not during the World War II. However, it had occured precisely during Cold War...

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cliftonian comments do highlight an issue we have on wikipedia. How to handle the unique nature of Palestine? As far as North Eastern France, note that all names under territories occupied link to a page than the linked territory. Wjile it says northeastern france it links to Home_front_during_World_War_I. I'm going to switch this over to foot notes later and this should clear up any confusion.. Finally Korea became occupied directly due to the results of world war II. It's occupation may have continued on but it started with the end of World war II.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect, Csisc, I don't think you've quite understood the point I was trying to make. I didn't say anything about Israel having the right to occupy these areas, and I don't dispute that Israel does occupy them (I was in the IDF so I should know). My point is that we currently label the "occupied state"—since 1967—as the State of Palestine, which the Palestine Liberation Organisation declared only in 1988 (see Palestinian Declaration of Independence). My point is that a small note should go on, either in the box itself or in a footnote, saying something along the lines of "The area has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967; the State of Palestine was declared in 1988." —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again this is a very complicated issue. You choose the date 1988 but someone else could easily choose the date 1974. Someone else may choose 1993. Any addition or change in this list needs to be handled carefully. Probably best to consider an RFC sometime later.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just put all the dates in the footnote? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  01:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because some of the dates I mention are original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave those out then and put only the reliably sourced ones? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  07:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well see the problem is what you want in the article borders may add undue emphasis. I can show you that the PLO was started in 1974 and the PNA in 1993. I can show you were both have been merged and now make up the state of Palestine, and even though this all true it's Original research. The lands were always known as Palestine. The lands where always the Palestinians. They just declared statehood in 1988. The land was never recognized as Terra Nullis. And You are apparently a former IDF soldier who has been active in the occupying force of Palestine. Again it's a complicated issue. I'm not going to make the change you suggest but sometime in the future I will open an RFC on the matter. An RFC will bring in further input from multiple. If you want you could start one now on the lists page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by mentioning my military service here (indeed I volunteer this information both on my user page and in the conversation above, so it's not like you're "outing" me). I'm not saying the lands weren't known as Palestine or that the people weren't Palestinians. My point here is that a differentiation needs to be made between the state called Palestine and the place called Palestine. In the table we refer to an "occupied state" and link the word "Palestine" to the article State of Palestine—with a start date of 1967, 21 years before said state declared independence. To be absolutely clear, I am *not* saying that there wasn't an occupation before 1988 or that it wasn't Palestinian land before then. You are right that it's a complicated issue. That's precisely why it would be an improvement to add clarification here rather than leaving things vague. I think an RFC would be advisable to get more views on this. Do you think we should do that on the talk page of the list directly or of the talk page of this peer review? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I am going to ask an editor active in this area, Malik Shabazz, to provide a third opinion. Malik, what do you think here? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes an RFC would be best on the talk page. It would probably be best if in the future you did not seek a third opinion in that manner. It's not that I have an issue your former military career but I can see it spinning into something later. Waste of time conversations about conflicts of interest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand where you're coming from there, and indeed this is part of why I kept an informal rule with myself when I was actually in the service not to edit anything related. Now I am a civilian again I would hope people would judge me based on my actions and words rather than automatically dismissing me as some mindless Zionist POV-pusher, which I most certainly am not; I hope my posts and edit history would demonstrate this. Thank you for clarifying your earlier statement.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm afraid I'm rather confused as to your ultimate goal with this peer review; surely the whole point of a peer review is to get more views and opinions, yet you seem keen to have an RFC at some unspecified point in the future rather than tackling the issue now, and when I asked a colleague to give a third opinion and guide us on procedure you upbraided me. I don't say this to criticise you; you opened this peer review and so far as I'm concerned you can conduct it as you see fit. Just giving my opinion. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  01:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I opened this to get advice on FA status for lists. Now if you'll look up, Hungary was a part of the Soviet Union (It wasn't actually). The occupation that took place in Korea was in no way related to World War 2 (It was actually.) And the multitude of the discussion has become about Israel and Palestine. I did not upbraid you. I just suggested in the future you avoid canvassing like behavior.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think asking an administrator extremely active in the Palestine–Israel field for his opinion and some guidance is "canvassing like behaviour", but I appreciate your suggestion. I regret just as much as you that this peer review has developed in this way and I hope that the issue I raised will be taken into account during this article's future development. Cheers, thanks for the civil chat and good luck. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  03:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. You do have a point, I'm just not sure about your proposed solution. I don't plan on taking any action right away but I will be opening an RFC. And this peer review has actually be helpful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Malik Shabazz: If you want an avalanche of opinions with respect to the occupation of Palestine, you ought to post messages at WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. There are several Wikipedia articles that try to describe the situation, but the best summary may be Palestinian territories, which (I think) does a decent job and also links to the other articles. Good luck, whatever you decide to do. You're striding into a minefield. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The hope is to avoid an avalanche of opinions with respect to Palestine and avoid any controversy about making a minor change to this list.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Crime was neither annexed nor "military occupied". It was a legitimate reunification with Russia after a legitimate referundum, where the vast majority voted for the reunification.--Orel787 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This of course ignores the views of the international community who have Russia under sanctions because they feel the the "Reunification" and referendum were and are illegitimate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MPJ
My weakness is grammar, but my strength is lists and tables and formatting etc. so I took the table through the wringer to see what I could come up with


 * Not sure what exactly the (Namibia) is supposed to indicate? It sorts by "(" though, should it not sort by N at least?
 * Occupying state - inconsistent on multiple countries, some are listed underneath each other, others side by side - Consistency please.
 * The list on past occupations sorts by year, the one on current occupations sorts on by "Territory occupied", should be consistent from list to list.
 * Only past occupations lists the "conflict" while the current occupations get a "note"?

Other comments
 * Very few actual sources in the list, I am surprised by that especially considering the criteria for inclusion is unclear and at times I see something on the list as "occupied" that basically boils down to "because the US said so".
 * Confused about Iceland being on the list - It list 1940 to 1945 for denmark, but on another line it stated Iceland declared themselves a republic in 1944.?
 * Iceland again - since the criteria is unclear I am really not sure why Iceland is listed as being "occupied" by Britain or the US? Being in charge of it's defense as listed in the note for the US to me is not the same as occupied. I mean they were SO occupied during the war they had time to declare independence from Denmark and become a republic - did the UK do that or the native icelanders? I am confused to their inclusion and that's just the one where I am familiar with the subject.
 * How are wikipedians ever going to make sure this list is exhaustive and complete?

Having been though FL review before this list needs 1) Clear criteria for inclusion that is not open for interpretation 2) full sources for everything in the table 3) a way to ensure it's complete.  MPJ  -US 21:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)